<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2017-05-30" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="9867" />
  <endPage num="9924" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Oakden Mental Health Facility</name>
      <text id="20170530e6bb0307aec1408d90000345">
        <heading>Oakden Mental Health Facility</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="question">
        <name>Mr MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Dunstan</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-05-30">
            <name>Oakden Mental Health Facility</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-05-30T14:25:34" />
        <text id="20170530e6bb0307aec1408d90000346">
          <timeStamp time="2017-05-30T14:25:34" />
          <by role="member" id="4338">Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:25):</by>  A supplementary: how can the Premier stand by the minister's claim that she acted immediately when we now have evidence, in the form of the letter from the Principal Community Visitor to the minister dated October last year, that she was asked by the community visitor to set up the investigation? How can he now state to this parliament that it was, in fact, at her instigation?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1812" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Cheltenham</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-05-30">
            <name>Oakden Mental Health Facility</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-05-30T14:25:59" />
        <page num="9891" />
        <text id="20170530e6bb0307aec1408d90000347">
          <timeStamp time="2017-05-30T14:25:59" />
          <by role="member" id="1812">The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:25):</by>  There are about three or four different formulations of that question, so I will address the question in the broad. What the minister did, as soon as she received the letter from Mr Corcoran, the community visitor, was that she asked for that to be considered and investigated. That directly led to the commissioning of the inquiry only two months later. So the most significant inquiry that has actually occurred in relation to this issue occurred within two months of the matter being drawn to her attention after she sought proper advice about it. That is precisely what you would expect the minister to do—to get proper advice and then to put in place a thoroughgoing process of review.</text>
        <text id="20170530e6bb0307aec1408d90000348">Obviously there was a series of considerations had to be gone into before the Chief Psychiatrist could be commissioned to do that, including consideration given as to the nature and scope of the review. It is a substantial step to go from a complaint, a series of complaints, even serious ones, to a suggestion that the service entirely is one that needs such a dramatic action. The fact that the minister reached that conclusion is proper, and it has ultimately led us to the position we are in today, where we are now looking deeply into issues that had not been revealed in the past.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>